Othrodox Empire wrote:Nation name: orthodox empire
number of units: 10
total: 660 milions
location for delivery: Dorcol - military base area 35
Order filled and delivered, thank you.
Advertisement
by Vinod Patney » Mon Oct 26, 2015 6:35 am
Othrodox Empire wrote:Nation name: orthodox empire
number of units: 10
total: 660 milions
location for delivery: Dorcol - military base area 35
by Vinod Patney » Mon Oct 26, 2015 6:36 am
The Alexanderians wrote:NATION NAME: Alexanderian States
NUMBER OF UNITS: 10
TOTAL: 660 million
LOCATION FOR DELIVERY: Forestport International Commercial Port
by The Venderlands » Mon Oct 26, 2015 6:39 am
by Vinod Patney » Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:05 pm
The Venderlands wrote:NATION NAME: The Empire of the Venderlands
NUMBER OF UNITS: 20
TOTAL: 1,320,000,000 Billion NSD
LOCATION FOR DELIVERY: The Port of Haguensbureu
by The Alexanderians » Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:06 pm
Galloism wrote:Or we can go with feminism doesn't exist. We all imagined it. Collectively.
by Vinod Patney » Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:14 pm
The Alexanderians wrote:AS early trials have been very successful for our armed forces, we would like to ask if your engineers think it is viable to mount weapons on the aircraft?
by The Alexanderians » Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:19 pm
Vinod Patney wrote:The Alexanderians wrote:AS early trials have been very successful for our armed forces, we would like to ask if your engineers think it is viable to mount weapons on the aircraft?
This is not a feat which we have preformed however our engineers have discussed adding a nose ball autocannon.
Galloism wrote:Or we can go with feminism doesn't exist. We all imagined it. Collectively.
by Vinod Patney » Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:53 am
by The Alexanderians » Thu Oct 29, 2015 4:28 pm
Vinod Patney wrote:side mounting would place the pontoon in the field of fire and would not be plausible.
Galloism wrote:Or we can go with feminism doesn't exist. We all imagined it. Collectively.
by Vinod Patney » Thu Nov 05, 2015 9:09 am
The Alexanderians wrote:Vinod Patney wrote:side mounting would place the pontoon in the field of fire and would not be plausible.
Does this include weapons ports as opposed to static armaments?
Or even remote weapons mounted in places that do not risk damage to the chassis? Weapons of .50 and smaller, not autocannons.
by Climalite » Thu Nov 05, 2015 9:14 am
by The Alexanderians » Thu Nov 05, 2015 10:11 pm
Vinod Patney wrote:The Alexanderians wrote:Does this include weapons ports as opposed to static armaments?
Or even remote weapons mounted in places that do not risk damage to the chassis? Weapons of .50 and smaller, not autocannons.
the location of the pontoon is such that it would limit the field of fire significantly from the side. remote mounting forward of the pontoon or rearward of 12mm weapons or smaller could be feasible but any other mountings other than forward or rearward of the pontoons, or in/under the nose or the rear loading gate are not advised by the manufacturer.
This sea plane's intended purpose is as a military transport, not a gunship. If your engineers are able to produce a viable gunship conversion, we would be interested in seeing the results of your development and testing.
Galloism wrote:Or we can go with feminism doesn't exist. We all imagined it. Collectively.
by SP Rebellion » Sun Nov 08, 2015 12:16 am
by Vinod Patney » Thu Nov 19, 2015 4:37 pm
by Vinod Patney » Thu Nov 19, 2015 5:16 pm
The Alexanderians wrote:Vinod Patney wrote:
the location of the pontoon is such that it would limit the field of fire significantly from the side. remote mounting forward of the pontoon or rearward of 12mm weapons or smaller could be feasible but any other mountings other than forward or rearward of the pontoons, or in/under the nose or the rear loading gate are not advised by the manufacturer.
This sea plane's intended purpose is as a military transport, not a gunship. If your engineers are able to produce a viable gunship conversion, we would be interested in seeing the results of your development and testing.
Our military doctrine involves defensive weapons on most vehicles, the intent on our part is to provide hot take off or landing possibilities as well as counters to drones. It would not be used as a dedicated gunship like the AC-130 by any means, a support role possibly. However we are planning on testing the nose cannon proposal and the remote weapons systems have thus far proven very successful with .50 weapon mounts. Testing with 25mm will be conducted soon. In any case we would like to purchase more.
NATION NAME: Alexanderian States
NUMBER OF UNITS: 10
TOTAL: 660 million
LOCATION FOR DELIVERY: Forestport International Commercial Port
by Vinod Patney » Thu Nov 19, 2015 5:16 pm
Solumnix wrote:NATION NAME: Solumnix
NUMBER OF UNITS: 8
TOTAL: 528 Million
LOCATION FOR DELIVERY: Langley Port, Cascade
by Vinod Patney » Thu Nov 19, 2015 5:18 pm
SP Rebellion wrote:HER MAJESTY'S MINISTRY OF DEFENSE
OFFICIAL COMMUNIQUE
Greetings!
We have read the specifications of your aircraft, and are interested in procuring 10 aircraft for our fleet.
Please find our application below.
Thank you,
Ian Johnson
SPIAN MINISTER OF DEFENSE
NATION NAME: The United Kingdom of SP Rebellion
NUMBER OF UNITS: 10
TOTAL: NSD $660,000,000
LOCATION FOR DELIVERY: Please have the planes delivered to RAF Madawaska City Airbase. We shall take care of further transport from that point.
by Duck Territories » Thu Mar 16, 2017 5:03 am
by Quasar Corporations » Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:28 pm
by Vinod Patney » Wed Oct 25, 2017 1:50 am
Duck Territories wrote:NATION NAME: Duck Territories
NUMBER OF UNITS: 50
TOTAL: 3.3 Billion
LOCATION FOR DELIVERY: Port City Naval Base
by Arthropol » Wed Oct 25, 2017 1:59 am
by Toin » Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:24 pm
Links
News | Q&A | Make a Freedom of Information Act request | Factbook
by Vinod Patney » Thu Oct 26, 2017 12:38 am
Arthropol wrote:I have some questions, can this be used as a firefighting aircraft and can this land on normal airstrips?
Advertisement
Return to Global Economics and Trade
Users browsing this forum: Anonymegg
Advertisement